[This Article, “The Supreme Consummation of Self-knowledge (in Summary)” is about the aspect of “How To” attain the unbroken abidance in/as the Self by a mature and ready seeker. It is (mainly) based on Shankara’s explanation at 18.50, BGB.]
Q: Of what nature is the Self-knowledge?
A: Of the same nature as the Self.
(In other words, Self and Self-knowledge are one and the same).
Q: Of what nature is the Self ?
A: Of the (same) nature as described by Lord Krishna (in the Bhagavad-Gita) and (also) as mentioned in the Upanishads.
Q: But the Upanishads say that the Supreme Self is formless and featureless. For example,
अरूपम् (formless) — 1.3.15, kaTha Upanishad.
Further, it is also said that the Self is not an ‘object’ that is available for perception:
न सन्दृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् (His form does not exist within the range of vision; nobody sees Him with the eye) – 4.20, Shwetaswatara; 2.3.9, kaTha.
In addition, the Self is,
अशब्दमस्पर्शम् (soundless, not touchable) – 1.3.15, kaTha.
The Self and the cognition (*) there of being formless and intangible, how can there be constant consummation on the Self?
A: [ (*) Let us first consider what “cognition” is.
The kena Upanishad tells us:
प्रतिबोधविदितं मतम् (known with reference to each state of intelligence) – 2.4, kena Upanishad.
The word “bodha” in the above mantra from kena stands for the “cognitions” acquired through the intellect. The Self, that encompasses all ideas as Its objects, is known in relation to all these ideas. Being the witness of all cognitions, and by nature nothing but the power of consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as non-different from them. There is no other door to Its awareness.
Therefore, when brahman is known as the innermost Self (i.e. Witness) of cognitions, then is It matam (known). That is to say, then there is Its complete realization.
Only by accepting brahman as the Witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness which is not subject to growth and decay; It is eternal, unconditioned, and pure in essence; It is the Self, One in all beings, just as it is in the case of AkAsha (space) because of the non-difference of its characteristics despite its existence in pots, caves, etc. ]
Now to answer the Question, “The Self and Its cognition being formless and intangible, how can there be constant consummation on the Self?:
Since it can be established that the Self is supremely taintless, pure and subtle, and it can also be established that the intellect can have taintlessness etc. like the Self, it stands to reason to hold that the intellect can put on the semblance of that (which is manifested as the) consciousness aspect of the Self.
Everywhere, from the intellect (buddhi) down to the physical body, the cause of illusory identification of each with the Self is its wearing a semblance of the consciousness aspect of the Self; and it is, therefore, unnecessary to impart directly the Knowledge of the Self.
Q: What then is necessary ?
A: What is necessary is the mere elimination of the not-Self associated with the Self – names, forms and the like. It is unnecessary to try and teach what the consciousness of the Self is like, inasmuch as it is invariably comprehended in association with the various objects of perception that are superimposed (on It) through ignorance.
To repeat, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for knowing brahman (Consciousness), for It is quite self-evident!
It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different.
But to those whose intellect has become free from external appearances and who have obtained the grace of a teacher and serenity of mind, there is nothing more blissful, manifest, well known, easily realized and nearer to oneself than this Self. And thus it has been declared: ‘प्रत्यक्षावगमं धर्म्यम्’ (directly realizable, righteous) – 9.2, BGB.
Complete steadfastness in the Knowledge of the Self, however, is impossible for those who have not been duly initiated into the traditional Knowledge by proper Gurus (न नरेणावरेण प्रोक्त एष सुविज्ञेय: (The Self is not certainly adequately known when spoken of by an inferior person; for It is thought of variously) – 1.2.8, kaTha Upanishad), who have not learned and studied the (teachings of the) Vedanta, whose intellect is quite engrossed in the external objects of senses, and who have not been trained in the right sources of True Knowledge.
— Therefore, it is only a cessation of the perception of the differentiated forms of the external world that can lead to a firm grasp of the real nature of the Self.
— The Self is not a thing unknown to anybody at any time, is not a thing to be reached or got rid of or acquired.
— It is not possible to imagine that pleasure is for pleasure’s sake and pain is for pain’s sake.
Self-knowledge is the aim of all human endeavor.
“The duties of the different stages of life are needed not for the fruition of the result of Knowledge, but for the emergence of Knowledge itself.” (3.4.26, BSB). “Sacrifices etc., when performed without any motive for fruits, become the means for the attainment of knowledge by an aspirant who desires liberation. Hence sacrifices etc. and self-control etc., which are the duties of the respective stages of life, are all but a means for the emergence of knowledge.” 3.4.27, BSB.
Just as there is no need for an external evidence by which to know one’s own body, so there is no need for an external evidence by which to know the Self who is even nearer than the body. Thus, it is clear that, to those who can discriminate, the Atma jnAna niShTha (abidance in/as Self-knowledge) is easy of attainment.
The fulfilled individual will also then appreciate how the word brahman implies several equivalents as expressed by Shankara in his bhAShya-s.
‘ज्ञानं ब्रह्म’ (Self-knowledge is brahman) — 2.2.1, taittirIya.U.
विज्ञानं ब्रह्म चेद्वेद (It should be known that Knowledge is brahman) — 2.5.1, taittirIya.U.
विज्ञानं ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् (One should understand that brahman is Knowledge) — 3.4.1., taittirIya.U.
प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म (Absolute Knowledge is brahman)– 3.1.3, aitareya.U.
ब्रह्मभावश्च मोक्षः (Liberation is the state of identity with brahman) — 1.1.4, BSB.
अशरीरता हि आत्मनः स्वरूपम् (The nature of the Self surely is disembodiedness). — 8.3.4, chAn.U.B.
[Also: प्रियाप्रियाभ्यां न वै सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रिययोरपहतिरस्त्यशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः ॥ (For anyone with a body, there is no getting rid of pleasure and pain;
but pleasure and pain do not, indeed, touch the unbodied Being). — 8.12.1, chAn.U.]
ब्रह्मैव हि मुक्त्यवस्था (The state of liberation being nothing but brahman Itself.) – 3.4.52, BSB.
मोक्षाख्यस्याशरीरत्वस्य प्रतिषिध्यत इति गम्यते (Emancipation is the same as disembodiment (bodylessness) – 1.1.4, BSB.
शरीरवियोगो हि मोक्ष आत्यन्तिकः (Absolute separation from the body is liberation.) — 3.9.28, Br.U.
[Note: All translations from Shankara bhAShya-s adopted from the works of Swami Gambhirananda or Shri Alladi Mahadeva Sastri.]
Dear Ramesam
Thanks for this.
From your post:
(1) “The Self is formless and intangible”. Elsewhere it is said that there are no parts to Brahman.
(2) “What is necessary is the mere elimination of the not-Self associated with the Self”. Indeed Knowledge = “To repeat, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on brahman through ignorance.”.
i.e. Knowledge is the undertaking of the elimination of the superimposition, as opposed to ‘knowing’ it is a superimposition.
(3) “Absolute separation from the body is liberation”
(3) logically follows on from (1) and (2), and further underscores the ‘undertaking’ that is required.
But to take the argument further:
(4) Desirelessness / non-possessiveness ineluctably follows from (3)
(5) Thought is also non-Self, as it is perceived. So elimination of non-Self would imply mauna. Only of mauna can it be said that:
“Liberation is the state of identity with brahman”, if one accepts Brahman being formless, intangible, partless.
Now the question is whether liberation in life actually means identity with Brahman here/now which implies a cessation of the me / other (ie of perception). Or is more akin to an elliptical curve approaching a tangential line; which is a fascinating image put forward by V.H.Date, which he attributes to his teacher Professor Ranade (who was in a similar lineage to Nisargadatta).
Best wishes,
venkat
Dear Venkat,
Thank you for your kind observations and the Question.
It is my understanding too that “Desirelessness,” as you say, is indisputably the fundamental prerequisite for any one who chooses to follow the Path of Knolwedge. The initial chapters of the BG clearly highlight this point.
Even here in the last (18th) Chapter of the Gita, Shankara opens his commentary at the 50th verse with the words, “The perfection the (earnest) seeker has already attained consists in the body and the senses being prepared for an unbroken abidance in Knowledge (jnAna niShTha) …” This establishes the fact that the teaching at 18.50, BG on is meant for an aspirant who is fully ready having attained the sAdhana catuShTaya sampatti.
Further, Shankara’s commentaty at 18.50, BG emphasizes that Self-knowledge is all-pervaise and never not there; hence, what one has to do is only to get rid of the not-Self obscuring the self-effulgent “Shine” of the Self and need not acquire anew Knowledge of the Self. This is in stark contrast to the opinion of some of the modern breed of teachers who hold that, on the analogy of some one not knowing Physics or Math has to be taught those subjects, a spiritual aspirant not knowing the Self has to be taught Self-knowledge!
Coming to the question you posed, I admit that I am not familiar with the idea floated by Shri VH Date. However, I may say here that to the best of my understanding, “Realization” of the Self is binary – Yes or No – matter, often compared to ‘pregnancy’ by some authors; so it cannot be like “tending to infinity” as in Calculus.
regards,
[Venkat says] “Now the question is whether liberation in life actually means identity with Brahman here/now which implies a cessation of the me / other (ie of perception). Or is more akin to an elliptical curve approaching a tangential line; which is a fascinating image put forward by V.H.Date, which he attributes to his teacher Professor Ranade (who was in a similar lineage to Nisargadatta).”
It depends on who you ask and to which answer you’re predisposed. R.D. Ranade was a saintly mystic, according to whom “mysticism denotes that attitude of mind which involves a direct, immediate, first-hand, intuitive apprehension of God”. Ranade credited Jnaneshwar Maharaj, the 13th-century Marathi philosopher/saint whom he considered to be the greatest interpreter of the Gita, with an original “landmark” contribution to the philosophy of mysticism which Ranade called the doctrine of asymptotism. God realization is a process and not an event. The aspirant approaches Reality in an asymptotic way, thus establishing approximation to Reality. As aspirants advance on their pilgrimage, visions of God serve as further incentives as they strive to attain moral perfection, a prerequisite for the ultimate realization, along with a “spirit of humility, and a life of tranquility, truth, penance, insight, strength, and right pursuit”. The aspirant acquires first – hand knowledge of God vis-a-vis a spiritual teacher. All this leads to further progress on the path. Subsequently, this leads to having a greater vision of God, and the entire process becomes an auspicious circle acquiring velocity both by aspirants ascending efforts and God’s descending grace. Since aspirants are always asymptotically approximating Reality and can never reach it, they never attain full identity with Reality as long as they are in this world. For Ranade, since neither the path of knowledge, nor the path of action, nor the path of devotion can lead to final liberation in this life, one should choose the path which best suits one’s temperament.
Thanks Rick. I forgot the word asymptomatic!
Autocorrect!
Or even asymptotic.
Could someone please explain what is meant by ‘God realization’? Is it a bhakti term for ‘enlightenment’? It would seem a bit strange if it is, since it clearly still implies duality.
Incidentally (at the risk of stirring up a hornet’s nest!), I am just writing about all these ideas about ‘destroying the ego, or mind’, and ‘focussing on the light within’ etc. None of them make any sense. It is acquiring Self-knowledge via shravaNa-manana that brings about enlightenment and nothing else!
[Dennis says] “Could someone please explain what is meant by ‘God realization’? Is it a bhakti term for ‘enlightenment’? It would seem a bit strange if it is, since it clearly still implies duality.”
For Ranade, ‘God-realization’ is another term for a certain kind of mystical experience, i.e. the experience of the identity between self and God. Ranade saw in the Upanishads different stages of spiritual experience which he arranged into a system with ascending steps and to which he evidently personally subscribed. First comes the realizing of the self within, still as something distinct (1). Then follows the apprehension that the ‘I’ within us is identical with the self (2). Next is the realization that this self is identical with the Absolute (3). Then ‘I’ am the Absolute (4), and finally, Brahman, the Absolute, is the ‘ALL’, comprising self, not-self, and Brahman (5). With this, says Ranade, the position of Advaita is reached, which can be intellectually apprehended and mystically realized.
Ranade was profoundly influenced by and had a deep respect for Shankara. He wrote that “the Absolute alone exists and Nature, and Souls, and God are all merged in the Absolute…the truths of the dualistic and the qualified-monistic systems of the Vedanta are both subsumed in the higher synthesis of the monistic.” But in Ranade’s opinion, even Shankara’s Advaita is subsumed into a higher synthesis through God-realization. And the bliss or ‘beatificism’, a word coined by him, which is connected with mystical experience is the criterion of its genuineness. Ranade seems not to have considered that bliss cannot stand as a proof for an experience of identity, since any type of mystical experience can be accompanied by bliss.
Dennis: “Could someone please explain what is meant by ‘God realization’? ”
While giving the explanation, please also clarify “What does the word “God” stand for in the phrase ‘God realization’.” Does it mean:
A. The attributeless Infinite brahman as “tat” in “tat tvam asi” (6.8.7, chAn. U);
B. The Creator Lord, or saguNa brahman as Ishwara at 1.1.1, BSB – omniscient; omnipotent etc.
C. The Magician or mAyAvi in shvetasvatara 4.9-10
D. Bhagavan as Shankara defined at 7.26.2, chAn.UB as ‘He who knows the origin, dissolution, coming and going, as also Knowledge and ignorance of beings.
regards,